Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-04-09
Judge Bonds Recent Decisions.

10 The Editor of the Dispatch:
OF course no one could have expected
a different decision from Judge Bond
in the case OF "Virginia as. William
L. Royal" and do not suppose there
is such Zany in the State as can be-
lieve that Mr.. Royal will ever be able
to recover one cent damages from the
members of the grand jury he sued. OF
course they can in turn sue him, they
choose. Judge Bonds decision in re-
gard to the injunction (us. the Indem-
nifying Board) asked for by MIR. Royal
appears to me utterly inconsistent with
some Of his own previous decisions, as
well as with one decision of the Su-
premc Court of the United States.
Great stress has been laid heretofore
on the fact that "when treasurer le-
We'd on property to collect the taxes
due by taxpayer who had rendered
coupons in payment such treasurer
was not acting as an officer of the State,
but was acting on his own personal re-
sponsibility." In other words, the
party making suchleyy acted as private
Individual, and not as treasurer of the
State. repeat that this was also one
of the main reasons given by the SUI
preme Court Of the United States why
the court could grant the aggrieyed
taxpayer the relief prayed for. The
court seemed to have decided that it
would have been beyond its power to
have granted relief by verdict against
treasurer of the State, so a majority
of the court whipped The devil around
the stump, by deciding that when the
levy was made the party leyying was
not acting as State officer but as
private individual. My impression fur
Their is that where judgments have been
obtained in such suits they were rem
dered against men acting on their per-
sona responsibility and not acting as
treasurers of the State. In Judge
Bonds late decision he distinctly recog
nizes that when the Indemnifying
Board makes good the loss to
party that had been damaged i'll his
efforts to collect the taxes due the
State, such party is not private citi-
zen, but an officer (treasurer) of the
State. This last decision Of the Judge
is, in my opinion, the correct one.
Still it looks singular that a man who
by one decision of a court was held to
be acting in his private capacity, and
at his own personal risk, should so
soon afterwards be held by the same
court as an officer of Virginia. If il
had been really true that treasurers
who levied on property acted as pri-
vate individuals, and not as State Off
GERS, then it would have appeared like
reason, If not of law, for Judge Bond
to have granted an injunction restrain
ing the Indemnifying Board from pay
ing money to private citizens to whom
the State did not owe one cent.
AS / regard Judge Bonds decision
refusing to grant the injunction asked
for by MIR. Royal as decided victory
for the State, perhaps my comments
Oh it may seem rather ill-timed but
believing, as L do, that the Constitu-
ton of the United States does not give
the power to any court of the United
States to NEEDLE in any sort of way
with the debt obligations of Virginia,
it plesses me when l see a decision
looking that way, even if such decision
appears to me IS utterly inconsistent
with former decisions of the same
court.
/ hope yet to live to see the day
when the Supreme Court OF the United
States viii decide that it has "no iu-
risdiciion whatever over the debt obj
cations of o State, because such "ju-
risdiction" - is expressly forbidden in
the plainest sort OF language by the
Constitution itself. MACON.